Pray 4 Mojo:Many published figures for San Francisco list TWO permits issued to private citizens in the entire City... while Boxer and Feinstein (although hers was a loooong time ago) both had them.

It's been made very difficult to even get a registered handgun into your home for self defense for a looong time as well unless you know someone with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) that also sells guns. Most people just go to a gun shop.

Step 1: Go buy a pistol. But not in San Francisco proper, there is exactly one gun shop that sells pistols in the city and it sells strictly to LEOs only. So you need to go a couple of miles south to someplace like Jackson Arms to buy it.

Step 2: Go through (and pay for) the California and San Mateo County background checks and registration fees..

Step 3: Once the checks are completed then you can go get your new pistol... no wait, you can't do that yet if you live in San Francisco. Instead to have to get it "exported" by someone with a FFL in San Mateo County to someone in San Francisco with a FFL who can legally "Import" it. Of course there are fees and such to pay at both ends for that to happen.

Step 4: Ok, the pistol is now officially "Imported" so now you can go get it right? No so fast there buddy. The city requires that they do their own background checks and registration. So even more fees to be paid (and it ain't cheap either).

Step 5: Ok now you can go get the pistol and take it home provided that you have an approved storage container and trigger locks. Time spent, about 1 month. Money spent on fees, licenses and registrations (not including the cost of the pistol itself, which by the way can't be an inexpensive "Saturday Night Special" as they define it but a much more expensive pistol that's on their "approved list") over $500 in paperwork alone when everything is said and done. At least seven transactions not including the gun proper.

All told the final cost for the least expensive pistol that they will let you have as a registered handgun is north of $1,000. And that's not even for a carry weapon. I can't imagine what they would ding a citizen to get a carry permit, open or concealed (if they ever issued them).

It could be at least a little bit cheaper if they would issue business licenses to gun shops within the city limits but good luck getting that through the zoning process. It's much quicker and cheaper for the gun shop to move south a couple of miles instead.

The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

That's the problem. The 2nd amendment is outdated and causes more trouble than its worth. Unfortunately the Constitution is so difficult to amend that it's not going anywhere, especially in this political climate.

The only sanity will come with the balance of power in the Supreme Court finally changes and enough cases helping to redefine the limits of the right to bear arms are decided in a manner that re-establish restrictions on personal firearm ownership.

"Reinterpreting" an established liberty due to an inability to actually amend the Constitution is intellectually bankrupt.

The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

The Republicans said it was when Prop 8 was being challenged. You can't have it both ways.

"The Republicans" were mistaken then, and TuteTibiImperes is mistaken now.

The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

The Republicans said it was when Prop 8 was being challenged. You can't have it both ways.

Guess what? I didn't support Prop 8.So, I'm not trying to have it both ways.

But, you're one of those people who thinks anyone who supports individual gun rights is an evilbadwrongrepublicanconservative.

I have been assured that, despite my advocacy of same-sex marriage, the teaching of evolution in public schools, a fair and progressive tax rate, health care reform and easy access to birth control and abortion, I am a "bagger" because I believed that a proposed law to ban .50 caliber rifles -- and to mandate surrender of any currently owned rifles to the government -- was not reasonable.

Scrotastic Method:The Republicans said it was when Prop 8 was being challenged. You can't have it both ways.

First of all there is no enumeration of the right to get married (gay or straight) in the constitution that I'm aware of while there is a very definitely an enumeration regarding the right to bear arms.

But let's just say that there is for the sake of argument. If you were "For" the overturning of Prop 8 then you must also be "For" this decision as well. You also don't get to have it both ways.

The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

That's the problem. The 2nd amendment is outdated and causes more trouble than its worth. Unfortunately the Constitution is so difficult to amend that it's not going anywhere, especially in this political climate.

The only sanity will come with the balance of power in the Supreme Court finally changes and enough cases helping to redefine the limits of the right to bear arms are decided in a manner that re-establish restrictions on personal firearm ownership.

"Reinterpreting" an established liberty due to an inability to actually amend the Constitution is intellectually bankrupt.

You don't seem to have a problem with how the Supreme Court reinterpreted it in Heller or McDonald.

The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

That's the problem. The 2nd amendment is outdated and causes more trouble than its worth. Unfortunately the Constitution is so difficult to amend that it's not going anywhere, especially in this political climate.

The only sanity will come with the balance of power in the Supreme Court finally changes and enough cases helping to redefine the limits of the right to bear arms are decided in a manner that re-establish restrictions on personal firearm ownership.

"Reinterpreting" an established liberty due to an inability to actually amend the Constitution is intellectually bankrupt.

You don't seem to have a problem with how the Supreme Court reinterpreted it in Heller or McDonald.

Your statement implies that I believe that the amendment was "reinterpreted" in those cases, but I do not.

Pray 4 Mojo:Callous: Pray 4 Mojo: Scrotastic Method: The Republicans said it was when Prop 8 was being challenged. You can't have it both ways.

Neither can you.

You got anything to show that he did support Prop 8?

WTF difference does that make? He CAN have it both ways if I don't?

No one can have it both ways. But he was pointing out that the Prop 8 ruling was inline with this ruling. Meaning no tyranny of the majority over the minority. During the run up to the decision that tossed Prop 8 the Republicans were making the same arguments that you are about this one. That the majority should be able to dictate the rights, of lack there of, of the minority. so if you are being intellectually honest and you oppose this ruling then you must oppose the ruling on Prop 8, you can't have it both ways. He made no statement as to his support or opposition to the ruling on Prop 8.

You replied with "Neither can you" as if he had made an assertion that he supported one ruling and not the other. So I ask you again, do you have any evidence that he opposed the ruling that put the kaibosh on Prop 8 but supported this ruling?

TuteTibiImperes:You don't seem to have a problem with how the Supreme Court reinterpreted it in Heller or McDonald.

Actually I don't know that they had ever "Interpreted" the 2nd amendment in the first place. As I recall when their, as you put it, "reinterpretation" took place in Heller one of the things that was widely talked about what how the SCOTUS had been studiously avoiding getting into it into the past which was one of the reasons that it was called a landmark case.

If you can cite where the original SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd is that you imply happened in the past that would be good.

EdNortonsTwin:WTF do they mean good moral character? If you stole someones watch or cheated on your wife 20 years ago you can't expect to get a permit?

Weird.

This is the kind of thing that allowing the police departments to have their own "discretion" about who can and can't have a permit leads to.

Boston.com articleEdward Arsenault, 70, of Fairhaven, was turned down for his license renewal earlier this year because he had been convicted in juvenile court of stealing a chicken from a chicken coop when he was 9 years old, in 1946.

This is a temporary decision. The San Diego DA and County Counsel has already asked for a stay of the decision and the full 9th Circuit to examine the case again and issue a new ruling. Chances are the 9th Circuit will agree and the decision will go the other way. If this does happen, there is some comfort for those requesting CCW permits in the fact that the 9th Circuit is the most overruled jurisdictions in the country when the Supreme Court takes a case and this issue will be going before the court at some point given the split in the various jurisdictions.

If you read over the decision, it does seem to be pretty well crafted in terms of historical analysis and why this California restriction by certain counties really is more burdensome than in other states given California's near total prohibition on open carry. If the right to self-defense is meaningful, it has to be able to be exercised and California has made that nearly impossible outside of ones home given the existing state gun control laws.

It will be interesting to see how they get around this issue in an opinion overturning this decision. My prediction is the disparity in urban and rural crime and difficulties law enforcement faces allows such reasonable restriction as to requiring additional means to justify a permit. Furthermore rural counties basically operate under a "shall" type issuing of CCW gives individuals the opportunity to move to those areas or to use the political process and elect a sheriff that will operate "shall" issuing method in urban counties.

"The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?

mrlewish:"The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?

If you feel as if you need a gun with you at all times to be safe there are problems far greater than CCW permits. The logical course of action would be to address why the police presence in the area is either inadequate or ineffective and take measures to fix that. It's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.

mrlewish:"The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?

1. What if she is forced to live in a dangerous neighborhood due to housing costs and availability and therefore must travel a dangerous area everyday.2. Many companies/businesses don't care assuming the gun isn't brought on premises so long as the hypothetical individual left it in the vehicle (which is a safety issue given storage options but a separate issue).

mrlewish:"The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?

Hopefully we get more reasonable outcomes in this debate. I'd rather there be a healthy scattering of properly trained CCW folks in society, than being at the complete mercy of police response to a shooter.

mrlewish:"The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?

I'm in telecom and we are required by the FCC to have 99.95% uptime on circuits that carry 911 traffic. We have techs that have to go out at all hours of the day and night into good and bad neighborhoods. We can't wait for conditions to improve, they have to go immediately. These guys have tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment(test sets, OTDRs, etc) in their trucks. While our employee handbook doesn't endorse them carrying firearms it also doesn't prohibit it. It's kind of a don't ask, don't tell kinda thing.

EdNortonsTwin:mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?

Hopefully we get more reasonable outcomes in this debate. I'd rather there be a healthy scattering of properly trained CCW folks in society, than being at the complete mercy of police response to a shooter.

Especially when the SCOTUS has ruled on more than one occasion that the police have no duty to protect you.

lewismarktwo:Finger51: My question to our collection of farklawyerguys: Can I apply for a CCW if I don't own a weapon? Planning on getting my Boobiesol some time this year ... I guess I'll need it before applying?/live in Oakland

Yes, you can apply without owning a handgun (unless your area requires a CCW tied to each handgun you own), but to complete the safety course you will need access to one. Most classes have a few 9mm or .22 pistols for rent during the class.

TuteTibiImperes:sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes:t's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.

Not according to the Supremes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

"The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, "

I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time. Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Your willingness to continue issuing a statement even after it has been proven to be false is admirable, in the same way that a creationist's insistence upon denying decades of established scientific research is admirable.

Callous:EdNortonsTwin: mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?

Hopefully we get more reasonable outcomes in this debate. I'd rather there be a healthy scattering of properly trained CCW folks in society, than being at the complete mercy of police response to a shooter.

Especially when the SCOTUS has ruled on more than one occasion that the police have no duty to protect you.

This! The people I know that hunt and shoot value their right to do so to such a degree, they would be the last person I could think of to commit a crime with a gun. This for fear they could lose the right forever.

sugar_fetus:lostcat: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Found this:

Currently, Concealed Carry Killers documents 465 incidents in 33 states and the District of Columbia resulting in 622 deaths. In 84 percent of the incidents (390) the concealed carry killer committed suicide (189), has already been convicted (151), perpetrated a murder-suicide (38), or was killed in the incident (12). Of the 60 cases still pending, the vast majority (50) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and six incidents are still under investigation. An additional 15 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder. At least 14 of the victims were law enforcement officers. Twenty-seven of the incidents were mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 128 victims.(http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm)

Wow. They count suicides?

Also, they count people who live in states that don't require a CCW permit to carry a firearm. I guess they need to pump up their numbers.

So, by that logic, every suicide in Arizona would be counted as a 'murder committed by a CCW permit holder.'

Unbelievable.

"Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Carey H. DyessSuicideDate: June 2, 2011People Killed: 6 (including shooter)Circumstances: On June 2, 2011, Carey H. Dyess, 73, went on an hours-long shootingrampage in two communities, killing five before taking his own life. In Arizona legal gunowners can carry concealed handguns without a permit."

As Arizona does not issue CCW permits, how could this guy be a "Concealed Handgun Permit Holder"?

Arizona does issue Concealed Weapons Permits. Arizona is also a constitutional carry state, which means that pretty much any idiot over 21 may legally walk around armed in public, and several idiots do. And he was legally carrying concealed until he started murdering people. That page says nothing about permits.

But he was pointing out that the Prop 8 ruling was inline with this ruling. Meaning no tyranny of the majority over the minority. During the run up to the decision that tossed Prop 8 the Republicans were making the same arguments that you are about this one.

Scrotastic Method:-- That's not what the Bill of Rights says,-- We're trumping states' rights,-- We're legislating from the bench, and,-- We're not even addressing a main point of contention.

It is what the Bill of Rights says. And if you read the Federalist Papers, you would know that it was the intent of the authors.Our Rights as recognized by the Constitution take precedence over state law.Since they did not create a new law, they are not legislating from the bench.The main point of contention absolutely was whether it was an individual right.

The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie). Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running for Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?

But he was pointing out that the Prop 8 ruling was inline with this ruling. Meaning no tyranny of the majority over the minority. During the run up to the decision that tossed Prop 8 the Republicans were making the same arguments that you are about this one.

Excuse me?

It is a stupid irrelevant argument trying to point out the hypocrisy on both sides. The popular opinion argument was used by republican backers of the Prop 8 decision which passed by a majority. A majorities opinion was irrelevant in that case where the rights of a minority were being restricted. Similarly some democrats use polling stating a majority of individuals wish to restrict the rights of gun ownership and it should be allowed. Situations are viewed by gun proponents that the majority is illegally trying to restrict the granted rights of a minority based on popular opinion. Who cares as we know consistency in values and arguments is not something either party can rely on?

This is irrelevant to the practical decisions the court is making concerning an actual interpretation of the issue at hand. In some counties in California, there is no legal way that private citizens can be granted the ability to legally carry weapons outside their home. Is this consistent with the 2nd amendment and Supreme Court cases as the 9th Circuit understands it? The decision today by 3 justices on the 9th Circuit says the present system of CCW permits violates the 2nd amendment, but the full 9th Circuit may hear this issue and may go the other way. It has nothing to do with popular will and opinion polls and instead rests on how you interpret the 2nd amendment and the rights it grants to citizens.

The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

That's the problem. The 2nd amendment is outdated and causes more trouble than its worth. Unfortunately the Constitution is so difficult to amend that it's not going anywhere, especially in this political climate.

The only sanity will come with the balance of power in the Supreme Court finally changes and enough cases helping to redefine the limits of the right to bear arms are decided in a manner that re-establish restrictions on personal firearm ownership.

"Reinterpreting" an established liberty due to an inability to actually amend the Constitution is intellectually bankrupt.

You don't seem to have a problem with how the Supreme Court reinterpreted it in Heller or McDonald.

You have a very distinct lack of knowledge about the history of the 2nd Amendment our courts. The Supreme Court did not go off into some radical new territory with their decision. They stuck with how they had ruled before, and only CLARIFIED things to make it impossible for state governments to weasel around what they had stated in the past.

Dimensio:TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes:t's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.

Not according to the Supremes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

"The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, "

I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time. Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Your willingness to continue issuing a statement even after it has been proven to be false is admirable, in the same way that a creationist's insistence upon denying decades of established scientific research is admirable.

The statement has not been proven false, you just keep attempting to argue it on a different basis than I am. Police officers are paid to investigate crimes, stop crimes in progress, and protect the peace. Even if they do not have a constitutional duty to intervene, that does not change the fact that it's their job to protect people who are in danger due to those who break the law.

The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie). Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running for Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?

No, I wouldn't be OK with that, but I respect the 1st amendment. Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.

Pray 4 Mojo:Daedalus27: In some counties in California, there is no legal way that private citizens can be granted the ability to legally carry weapons outside their home.

It's worse than that... private citizens who are white, wealthy and politically connected have them issued at exponentially greater rates than the other side of the demographic spectrum.

Interesting that so many on the left support such racism and class bias.

In an ideal world no one would be issued a CCW except for sworn law enforcement officers. That would be equitable and allow the police to more effectively prevent gun violence. If only police can carry guns in public, anyone else seen with a gun in public can automatically be assumed to be up to no good and appropriate action can be taken.